Outcomes after corrective surgery for congenital dextro-transposition of the arteries using the arterial switch technique: a scoping systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Dextro-transposition of the great arteries (d-TGA) is the most frequent cyanotic congenital heart pathology in neonates. Surgical correction of this condition is possible using the arterial switch operation (ASO) which was first performed by Jatene in 1975. Objectives The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence on short- (less than 1 year), medium- (1–20 years), and long-term (more than 20 years) outcomes of children with d-TGA treated with the ASO. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary outcomes were freedom from cardiac reoperations, occurrence of aortic insufficiency, pulmonary stenosis, coronary artery anomalies, neuropsychological development problems and quality of life. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, and reference lists of included articles for studies reporting outcomes after ASO for d-TGA. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done independently by two reviewers. We pooled data using a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and, where not possible, outcomes were synthesized narratively. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Main results Following ASO for TGA, short-term survival was 92.0% (95% CI 91.0–93.0%; I2 = 85.8%, 151 studies, 30,186 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Medium-term survival was 90.0% (95% CI 89.0–91.0%; I2 = 84.3%, 133 studies; 23,686 participants, moderate certainty evidence), while long-term survival was 87.0% (95% CI 80.0–92.0 %; I2 = 84.5%, 4 studies, 933 participants, very low certainty evidence). Evaluation of the different secondary outcomes also showed satisfactory results in the short, medium and long term. Subgroup analysis suggests slightly higher survival following ASO for TGA in the second surgical era (1998 to 2018) than in the first surgical era (1975 to 1997) in the short and medium term [93.0% (95% CI 92.0–94.0) vs 90.0% (95% CI 89.0–92.0) and 93.0% (95% CI 91.0–94.0) vs 88.0% (87.0–90.0%) respectively] but not in the long term [81.0% (95% CI 76.0–86.0%) vs 89.0% (80.0–95.0%)]. Conclusions Pooled data from many sources suggests that the ASO for d-TGA leads to high rates of survival in the short, medium, and long term.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".